The Department of Defense yesterday sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that puts limits on the size of the plane she may use to travel across the country and restricts the guests she can bring, The Washington Times has learned.
A congressional source who read the letter signed by Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Wilkie said it essentially limits her to the commuter plane used by former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, which requires refueling to travel from Washington to Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco district. A second source, in the Bush administration, confirmed the contents of the letter.
The Washington Times first reported last week that Mrs. Pelosi's staff was pressing the Department of Defense for an Air Force aircraft large enough to fly nonstop to San Francisco. She also has pressed to be able to include other members of the California congressional delegation, her family members and her staff on the plane.
"It's not a question of size. It's a question of distance," Mrs. Pelosi told reporters yesterday. "We want an aircraft that can reach California."

no, you quite obviously hate the Democrat who sins.... not that anyone is really surprised, despite your incessant whining about "coming together" and to "stop the partisan bickering in order to move forward".... here you are "weighing in" on democrats at every chance...

another shining example of how you're easily the most profound hypocrite on this message board... but for the grace of God, please go

Well, if the plane was good for Hastert, then it should be good enough for Pelosi. The only thing I'll say is that Hastert was from the midwest, whereas Pelosi is from California. So did Hastert have to refuel going home? Sure it's the same plane, but did Hastert have to succumb to the same inconvenience of having to refuel? I say that if he didn't have to, then she shouldn't have to. Also though, there is no way that her family and friends should be flying on a taxpayer funded plane. No politicians family should. I like that who can fly is restricted. It should be for everybody.

I thought the whole thing had to do with security, not convenience, and the argument about a bigger plane had to do with unnecessary stops and possible security issues associated with it. From what I read and the is a lot of crap flying around, it was suggested by the WH and is a matter of protocol for a person in succession to be president.

Well, if the plane was good for Hastert, then it should be good enough for Pelosi. The only thing I'll say is that Hastert was from the midwest, whereas Pelosi is from California. So did Hastert have to refuel going home? Sure it's the same plane, but did Hastert have to succumb to the same inconvenience of having to refuel? I say that if he didn't have to, then she shouldn't have to. Also though, there is no way that her family and friends should be flying on a taxpayer funded plane. No politicians family should. I like that who can fly is restricted. It should be for everybody.

Click to expand...

I am sure they can find here a plane to fly from Washington to SF non stop. Not that I see why that's needed, but I'll go with it. The problem is she wants it to be outfitted with all that special stuff, 42 first class seats, bedroom, etc, that evidently makes it more difficult.

Too bad. She can choose between a lesser (but still fully appropriate) plane or a nicer one that needs refueling. Or she could just fly commercial if she likes.

I thought the whole thing had to do with security, not convenience, and the argument about a bigger plane had to do with unnecessary stops and possible security issues associated with it. From what I read and the is a lot of crap flying around, it was suggested by the WH and is a matter of protocol for a person in succession to be president.

Click to expand...

These issues are sometimes hard to follow. So much information, then misinformation, to go along with the spins of every side involved. Hastert was speaker, and now Pelosi is, so there shouldn't be much to change should there? What was good for him, should be good for her, and subsequently should be good for the next person I would think. I don't think family and friends should be included for anyone. It's a taxpayer funded plane, and not a free ride to Disneyland. My only issue with her being stuck with Hasterts plane, is whether or not Hastert had to refuel to go to his home state. I'd imagine she shouldn't have to stop if he didn't. That'd only be fair.

Well, if the plane was good for Hastert, then it should be good enough for Pelosi. The only thing I'll say is that Hastert was from the midwest, whereas Pelosi is from California. So did Hastert have to refuel going home? Sure it's the same plane, but did Hastert have to succumb to the same inconvenience of having to refuel? I say that if he didn't have to, then she shouldn't have to. Also though, there is no way that her family and friends should be flying on a taxpayer funded plane. No politicians family should. I like that who can fly is restricted. It should be for everybody.

Click to expand...

All agreed except the plane she wants is not only one that travels non-stop, it is BIG. And that means BIG money, somewhere in the vicinity of the $20K per hour that I cited originally. Gotta find a smaller plane that can make the trip non-stop.

yeah, i believe Fox News has literally devoted an aggregate hour to the trial in the three weeks since it started...

Click to expand...

All outlets have slants, angles, and viewers to concern themselves with. MSNBC has devoted 23 hours to the trial because it knows it's viewers are those interested in it. CNN reports on it a bit, but not nearly like MSNBC. CNN actually has been very heavy on Iraq. Fox has been all over the gambit, although Hannity and his noticably more partisan crap has gone to report on Clinton and his Bin Laden crap. No idea why, other than partisan bitterness. He's always been an obvious partisan, but he's been really over the top lately. He and Mathews have both showing their true colors since the election in November. Too bad on Mattews, I used to really enjoy his show. I still do, but he's real partisan now. I can take some partisanship, we're all human afterall.

All agreed except the plane she wants is not only one that travels non-stop, it is BIG. And that means BIG money, somewhere in the vicinity of the $20K per hour that I cited originally. Gotta find a smaller plane that can make the trip non-stop.

Would a Piper Cherokee need re-fueling??

//

Click to expand...

$20k an hour. Wow. Not picking on her, since all pols get these types of perks. It just makes you wonder how much money our government spends on crap like this. Who decides how often she (when I say she I mean all pols)can fly? Does anyone monitor or restrict perks like these? How many senators fly for free, or get cars and hotels on taxpayers? What massive waste for which you and I pay. Kinda sad.